Perhaps because the big flood of illegal immigrants is from south of the border. It's common sense. We don't have a big flood of Welsh illegals, so an accent from the UK doesn't attract the same attention.

"Also, unlike your wife (my wife is a foreigner too) who doesn't seem to mind being asked about her papers, my wife (now a citizen) finds it offensethat she be asked, and I am not asked, when we are together. I understand her point."

JDN, The death penalty is applied to people convicted of heinous crimes in certain jurisdictions, it hits blacks disproportionately and it is labeled discriminatory and racist. (Their victims were disproportionately black as well!) Abortions paid for by taxpayers hit black babies disproportionately more than 3 times worse than white babies, and they are not labeled discriminatory by the people who put themselves in charge of those labels. Employee check will hit people of certain ethnicities disproportionately, maybe Hispanic where you are and maybe Somali and Hmong here, but much harder than 4th or 5th generation midwestern Scandinavian Americans for certain. Applying the law evenly doesn't make the charge go away.

Employers are not the enforcement arm of the federal government and don't need more burdens. IMO they should supply and submit to the federal immigration authorities any information that the feds require of them for each applicant or employee. Then the Feds have the responsibility to act on the information, come out and arrest and deport if they were serious about their job. Simply turning away English challenged, medium skinned people with lousy documentation from work to welfare is no solution in my view.

I'm not quite understanding your logic. Those that commit crimes, do voluntarily and well, they committed a crime and should pay the penalty. A legal immigrant with an accent did not break the law. That said, I'm not sure I am in favor of the death penalty, but that is another subject. Abortion, again we respectfully disagree on the subject - taxpayers actually save money since as you indirectly point out, many of those children would be on welfare otherwise, but if it is discriminatory, well it is voluntary.

I'm not asking Employers to enforce the law. Just reject any applicant who doesn't have a social security card, isn't of legal age to work, and in this instance doesn't have a legal right to work. Cut off the jobs, and you take away the incentive to be illegal and come to America. And in CA there are a lot of predatory employers, paying illegals less than minimum wage, no benefits, unsafe working conditions, etc. I have no sympathy for those employers. They too are criminals and should be punished.

The same rules that are applied to employers to pay someone should apply to all agencies of government and welfare. How is it legal to pay out or take money for doing nothing but illegal to work and earn it? I will need that explained to me.[/quote]

Sorry, I can't help you. I don't get it either. If you are illegal, except for true emergency care, I don't think you should receive any benefits.When you find the answer, let me know.

Imagine how few bank robbers would be caught if only FBI agents could arrest them. It's my understanding that ICE only has about 2000 LEOs nationwide working cases on illegal aliens. In a nation of 300 million, with millions of illegals that's an impossible task. The reason the criminal alien lobby screams so loudly at having local level LEOs enforcing immigration law is that it is game over for their plans, if properly implemented.

"Also, unlike your wife (my wife is a foreigner too) who doesn't seem to mind being asked about her papers, my wife (now a citizen) finds it offensethat she be asked, and I am not asked, when we are together. I understand her point."

Exactly how often does this happen? Details please.[/quote]

Odd, it happened last month, that's why it's fresh in my mind. We both went to the local community college to sign up for a class. At the registration desk, they demanded proof of legality from my wife (the cost is different for legal foreign students) (odd, the price is not different for illegal foreign students who attended high school in CA - someday explain that one to me) and while I was right next to her, they never asked me regarding my legal status.

And I don't have a problem with LEO's asking about my legal status, but perhaps they should just ask everyone. That would be fair. But merely because you have an accent, you should not have to jump through hoops.

Slightly different subject, but GM, if I am stopped, I provide a valid CA Driver's license, can't I simply refuse to answer any other questions? I mean how is my legal status relevant to my speeding ticket orbroken taillight?

For example, on my Driver's License, I have my Post Office Box; not my Home Address. A few months ago I was stoppedfor not yielding in a cross walk. The LEO asked, "Where do I live?" I politely replied that's not relevant and he got upset, but accepted(he had to) my answer - I live in a PO Box as far as you are concerned. I knew I was getting the ticket, I knewI would beat it, so let's just move on with the process. My personal life is not his business.

Slightly different subject, but GM, if I am stopped, I provide a valid CA Driver's license, can't I simply refuse to answer any other questions? I mean how is my legal status relevant to my speeding ticket orbroken taillight?

For example, on my Driver's License, I have my Post Office Box; not my Home Address. A few months ago I was stoppedfor not yielding in a cross walk. The LEO asked, "Where do I live?" I politely replied that's not relevant and he got upset, but accepted(he had to) my answer - I live in a PO Box as far as you are concerned. I knew I was getting the ticket, I knewI would beat it, so let's just move on with the process. My personal life is not his business.

In some states, like mine you are required to list your current physical address on you DL/ID per state statute. I'm guessing Cali requires that if stopped that you provide a valid DL/registration and proof of insurance, like most states. You don't have to answer any other questions, but it is resonable for a LEO to ask them as traffic stops for minor offenses can be an opportunity for the detection of serious crimes. Timothy McVeigh was arrested by an OK State Trooper after a stop for a missing lic. plate. The trooper observed a concealed weapon on McVeigh and arrested him for that. Ted Bundy was first arrested on a traffic stop for a minor violation, the officer observed burgalary tools during the stop and arrested him for that.

You are right; in CA only a valid DL/registration and proof of insurance is required here.

Nothing wrong with being observant; if you see a weapon of course you ask (safety).

However, even if I was in your state and listed my home address on my license, I presume I could refuse to answer anyother questions.

So to summarize, as you just said, IF I was stopped for a traffic stop for a minor violation and asked if I was illegal, I could legally and politely say, "none of your business". And, I presume this is probably true in any state.

Under the controversial AZ law, providing a valid AZ DL was considered a valid form of proof of legal presence for the AZ LEOs.

Something I've dealt with more than a few times is contacting an obvious illegal that has no form of valid ID. When you do get a chance to book them and get an opportunity to run their prints, it's amazing the number of warrants and aliases they usually have in the system.

"asked if I was illegal, I could legally and politely say": ... ninguno de su negocio ?? ------Murder and euthanasia can save the taxpayer money too, wrong criteria and wrong topic. My point is that discrimination as an accusation is thrown around so loosely that fear of that accusation is both ubiquitous and somewhat meaningless.

Some indication that you may be from elsewhere (and need documentation) is more like some indication that you were drinking some (also not illegal) but may cause a further look or test for which you have already given 'implied consent'. The burglary tools in themselves may not be illegal. As a landlord, those same tools of mine may be in plain view and misconstrued without explanation.

GM explained and that is reasonable, but I also don't like it when they ask me where I am coming from and where I am going either for having a pinhole leak of white light out of a red tail light lens. Engage in conversation is what they do to look for other things. I agree with the JDN right to not engage but not necessarily agree its your best strategy.----------"in CA there are a lot of predatory employers, paying illegals less than minimum wage, no benefits, unsafe working conditions, etc. I have no sympathy for those employers."

- Agreed, if true, for those obvious cases. In the accusation will be the word 'knowingly' plus they are breaking plenty of other laws.

"Cut off the jobs, and you take away the incentive to be illegal and come to America."

- No. Cut off the jobs and the welfare simultaneously, add real enforcement and they will not come. Let's lock in at least the agreement we already discovered!

I'm not aware of ever showing identification to get a job. Of course I haven't gotten one recently either and my local accent is very authentic. My town in Colo has the illegals problem. The bank there required two forms of photo id to open an account. I never carry a passport and it's expired anyway. I started out the door and they were willing to lose me as a customer to be consistent on their policy, then I remembered my Vail season pass has a mug on it, and they accepted that. What did that prove?---------We beat around the bush on immigration. The problem continues because the executive branch in charge of enforcement doesn't like the law and the opposition party is split about it. The flagrant business may still exist out there but this isn't overall a private sector issue. The Arizona enforcement law created a healthy debate. Still meaningless if the Feds do nothing. Catch and release. The sanctuary city phenomenon is a violation of federal law, harboring and co-conspiring? The transportation dept. wouldn't nor would any other department or agency accept rogue municipalities failing to follow federal law. If a law is wrong, unconstitutional or meaningless, repeal it or strike it down, not just selectively ignore it. Otherwise, enforce it - at all levels.

That is kind of what I am driving at. It is expected and proper that you ask for a Driver's License from anyone you stop regardless of their color or ethnicity.

If they don't have one, they are fair game again, regardless of color or ethnicity. That's fair and nondiscriminatory. And if, after you run their printsthey are guilty of any crime, perhaps driving without a license? or if a warrant is outstanding, or... well, I have no sympathy. But IF they have have a valid Driver's License,it also follows they do not have to answer any other questions, therefore if they are smart they should politely refuse to answer any other questions and simply go on about their business be they legal or illegal, a criminal or not.

But how about passengers in the car? It is my understanding that assuming there is no reasonable suspicion that you are involved in a criminal activity (Hiibel) the LEO has no rightto ask for ID. And in CA you still don't have to provide ID; note CA like many states does not have a stop and identify law therefore Hiibel does not even apply in CA.

Back in the 60's/70's, the US Border Patrol used to pay bounties to local/state LEOs who arrested illegals and turned them over to the BP. Think about how little a problem we had then.

Yes, you can only detain people on a traffic for a limited amount of time. The courts have said it must be a reasonable amont of time based on the totality of the circumstances, and unless there is a statute in the state requiring that ID be provided, pasengers need not provide it without cause for it to be demanded.

Woof, The idea is to make hiring an illegal alien so costly to employers so that there is no incentive for them to do so. Employers are not hiring them out of a sense of compassion or equality, they hire them so they can exploit them. They work for next to nothing, they receive no benefits, and they don't complain about work conditions or getting hurt because they are here illegally. It's about profit. You take the profit out of it and the jobs dry up and with that the incentive for illegals to come here in the first place is gone so that the ones here self deport and others stop coming. The full enforcement of our laws over time will reduce the problem down to manageable levels. I love it when the open borders folks yell you can't deport 12 million people! Yes we can, the same way they came in, one at a time over a period of years and during that time we can work out a fair work program that makes employers responsible for the needs of any immigrant worker they hire while here and not the taxpayer. As for those that want citizenship, we have a process for that already and they need to get in line and for those that have been here for a number of years you give them the opportunity to come forward and identify themselves and give them time to get their affairs in order and then leave of their own accord and see to it that they retain the ability to apply for citizenship and take part in any future work program. If they don't then when we catch them they should be deported immediately and then forever banned from entering the U.S. again. P.C.

I would quibble a bit with the broad brush with which the word "exploit" is applied there. While hiring illegals certainly can and often is done with such motives and in such a manner, it can also be:

a) willingess to work for less means work that is unprofitable at wages that include governmentally imposed costs gets done.

b) there is a work ethic in many illegals not found in many native-born Americans

c) there are cultural values found in many illegals not found in many native-born Americans. For example, there is a respect to the importance of warm maternal care to young children found in many Latina nannies not commonly found in modern Jerry Springer feminist Americans , , ,

The Arizona immigration law was controversial from the beginning. Critics said it was ripe for abuse, implicitly discriminatory and probably unconstitutional as well. Business groups and liberal activists joined forces to oppose it. But now that it’s been implemented, it might just be a model for nationwide reform.

No, I’m not talking about the Arizona law that empowers local police to check the immigration status of anyone they detain, which generated a wave of boycotts and a surfeit of Gestapo analogies last spring. I mean the 2007 Arizona law requiring businesses to confirm their employees’ legal status with the federal E-Verify database, which was upheld last week in a 5-to-3 decision by the United States Supreme Court.

The E-Verify law was never as polarizing as last year’s police-powers legislation, but it still attracted plenty of opposition. Arizona business interests called it unfair and draconian. (An employer’s business license is suspended for the first offense and revoked for the second.) Civil liberties groups argued that the E-Verify database’s error rate is unacceptably high, and that the law creates a presumptive bias against hiring Hispanics.

If these arguments sound familiar, it’s because similar critiques are always leveled against any attempt to actually enforce America’s immigration laws. From the border to the workplace, immigration enforcement is invariably depicted as terribly harsh, hopelessly expensive and probably racist into the bargain.

Not to mention counterproductive: advocates for “comprehensive” reform, the holy grail of liberal Democrats and moderate Republicans alike, have long implied that it’s essentially impossible to prevent illegal immigrants from finding their way to eager employers. Instead, they argue, we have no choice but to ratify the status quo — i.e., mass low-skilled immigration from Mexico and Central America — by creating a vast new guest-worker program and offering citizenship to illegal immigrants already here.

So far, though, Arizona’s E-Verify law seems to be providing a strong counterpoint to this counsel of despair. According to a recent study from the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California, the legislation reduced Arizona’s population of working-age illegal immigrants by about 17 percent, or roughly 92,000 people, in just a single year. (This effect was entirely distinct from the Great Recession’s broader impact on immigration, the study argues.) And the swift attrition was mainly achieved through voluntary compliance: the number of employers prosecuted under the law can be counted on one hand.

These results suggest that maybe — just maybe — America’s immigration rate isn’t determined by forces beyond any lawmaker’s control. Maybe public policy can make a difference after all. Maybe we could have an immigration system that looked as if it were designed on purpose, not embraced in a fit of absence of mind.

At least in the short term, there’s no good reason for such a system to include any kind of amnesty. This was a dubious idea even during the last decade’s economic boom. It would be folly (and a political nonstarter) in this economic climate, which has left Americans without high school diplomas (who tend to lose out from low-skilled immigration) facing a 15 percent unemployment rate.

But eschewing amnesty doesn’t require shutting down immigration. Quite the opposite: With increased enforcement (to date, only a few states have Arizona-style E-Verify laws on the books, though the Obama White House seems to be stepping up prosecutions of employers), the United States could welcome as many immigrants as we do today. But instead of shrugging as low-skilled workers jump the border to compete with the struggling American working class, our immigration policy should focus on recruiting well-educated migrants, opening the door to greater legal immigration from Asia, Africa and Europe.

As it happens, a system along these lines exists right now — in Canada. A recent report from the Manhattan Institute found that the United States still assimilates immigrants more successfully than many Western European countries. But culturally and economically, we lag well behind our northern neighbor when it comes to integrating new arrivals.

In part, this is because Canada fast-tracks immigrants to citizenship. But it’s also because Canada does more to recruit highly educated émigrés than the United States — and the Dominion’s more international, geographically diverse immigrant population probably discourages balkanization and self-segregation. (No single country or region dominates Canada’s immigration numbers to the extent that Mexico and the rest of Latin America dominate immigration to the United States.)

The result is a system that welcomes newcomers but serves the national interest as well. America isn’t close to that sweet spot at the moment, but it’s what we should be aiming for. By learning from Arizona, and becoming more like Canada, we might finally have an immigration policy worthy of the U.S.A.

Where I live we have our own border issue when Packer fans take over the Vikings metrodome once a year. This story in American Thinker says that the US team was booed in their soccer matchup against Mexico:

...for the sake of those who will say this is just a sporting contest, and nothing is to be inferred or learned from it, here are a couple thoughts:

In soccer, as in no other sport, team allegiance mirrors national allegiance. Soccer's ultimate contest, The World Cup, is a competition of national teams. The national team World Cup mentality dominates the entire fan base. In inter-country games, the fan roots for the team whose flag owns his heart and claims his first allegiance. The PC Los Angeles Times quotes one of the Mexican team's Rose Bowl fans, in part, as follows: "I was born in Mexico, and that is where my heart will always be." Exactly. And that's the problem with recent and present Mexican immigration.

The massive river of immigrants from Mexico, legal and illegal, that the Democratic Party has been chaperoning into America for decades, in goals and desires, is not your grandparents' immigrants. The vast majority come to share space and partake of our prosperity (such as it is), not to become Americans. They are encouraged in these aims by those who welcome them for their own electoral purposes -- Democrat activists, who know that, as an unassimilated nation apart, laden with grievances and a sense of victimhood, Mexican immigrants are most likely to become dependable clients and voters of the statist party.

Judging by the sympathies of the vast majority of the Rose Bowl crowd, Democrats are getting their wish. No one will ever know for sure how many present at Pasadena on that warm southern California evening were second or third generation "Americans", or how many are in fact American citizens. But those in the crowd who fit these profiles must have been huge in number. And still, whether second or third generation, or American citizen, their first allegiance manifestly was to a foreign state.

And that first allegiance is dragging America into balkanization and disintegration. In these trends, as in so many other phenomena destructive of the nation we all once knew, California leads the way. New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado are right behind, closing fast. Other states will follow if the pattern is not stopped and soon.

In his last public utterance, then former President Theodore Roosevelt spoke of the terms on which immigration to America should be offered, and of the reward for the immigrant's acceptance of those terms:

"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here does in good faith become an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed or birthplace or origin. But this is predicated on the man's becoming in very fact an American and nothing but an American.

If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn't doing his part as an American.

"We have room for but one language here and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, and American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house; and we have room for but one sole loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people."

Letter of President Theodore Roosevelt, January, 1919, written and read, as intended, in public, just before his death.

Theodore Roosevelt's views of immigration to America, and the promise America extended to the immigrants who kept their side of the bargain, were in fact the terms on which the great waves of European immigrants to America during the period 1880-1920 came, lived their lives, and became Americans. This writer's four grandparents were among them. That system worked. And it would work again. In fact, Theodore Roosevelt's terms are those which every nation in the world, including Mexico, (but not America), requires of its immigrants.

We need to return to our grandparents' immigration: assimilation, English and single, undivided loyalty. Multiculturalism is a catastrophic, nation-destroying mistake, invented by Democrats to prop up their sagging electoral base. It is pulling America apart.

In the meantime, to each of those living in America whose hearts will always be in Mexico, we can only wish a safe one way journey that reunites heart with body.

Yet another example of Mexico's reconquista of America's Southwest was displayed at the Rose Bowl in the prestigious Gold Cup Final between the U.S. and Mexico's soccer teams.

Mexico was the "home team" for the largely Hispanic crowd. America's national anthem got no respect: Air horns blared. And once the game started, the U.S. team was constantly booed. Every goal by Mexico's team drew shouts of "Ole!"

So what does the Los Angeles Times think about this unsettling spectacle? Sports reporter Bill Plaschke likes it and says so in an article, "In Gold Cup final, it's red, white and boo again."

He writes:

How many places are so diverse that it could fill football stadiums with folks whose roots are somewhere else? How many places offer such a freedom of speech that someone can display an American flag on their porch one day and cheer against the flag the next? I hated it, but I loved it. It felt as if I was in a strange place, and yet I felt right at home."

He loves it?...But hates it? And gets a warm and fuzzy feeling because it's all about "diversity." Well, this certainly sounds like a nasty case of liberal cognitive dissonance - an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding conflicting ideas in one's mind at the same time.

To be sure, the sort of thing that Plaschke and L.A. Times regard as an all-American display has been going on for years in Los Angeles. Harvard political scientist Samuel P. Huntington was particularly appalled by what he considered the anti-American displays evident in the Rose Bowl in 1998.

In his famous essay "The Hispanic Challenge" in Foreign Policy magazine, Huntington saw the disrespect for American's national anthem and the booing of the U.S. soccer team as harbingers of things to come - a country split in two as Mexicans and other Latinos failed to assimilate into American culture.

Referring to Mexican-Americans booing America's national anthem and even assaulting U.S. soccer players, Huntington wrote:

"Such dramatic rejections of the United States and assertions of Mexican identity are not limited to an extremist minority in the Mexican-American community. Many Mexican immigrants and their offspring simply do not appear to identify primarily with the United States."

That a Los Angles Times writer approves of the most recent Rose Bowl spectacle underscores yet again that many in the mainstream media are out-of-step with what most Americans believe.

Incidentally, one Mexican-American quoted by the L.A. Times said that booing the U.S. team was a natural thing to do. Victor Sanchez, 37, was apparently brought to the U.S. as a boy. Dressed in a Mexico jersey, he explained: "I love this country, it has given me everything that I have, and I'm proud to be part of it. But yet, I didn't have a choice to come here, I was born in Mexico, and that is where my heart will always be."

He added: "We're not booing the country, we're booing the team. There is a big difference."

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- Elisha Dawkins graduated in August from nursing school in Jacksonville.

He put on hold his plans for taking the board exams because the Navy called him into action as a photographer.

Dawkins photographed happenings at Guantanamo Bay, an act that's evidence he's a trusted member of the military with top secret clearance.

Now, Dawkins, a Navy reservist and decorated Army combat photographer who served in Iraq, is in jail, charged with passport fraud. He's facing 10 years in prison for what could be a simple misunderstanding.

"Suddenly, he's picked up and thrown in jail? Then it's time for this senator to start asking questions," U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson., D-Fla., said.

Nelson has questions echoed by Dawkins' friends, including Dianne Rinehardt.

Elisha Dawkins served with the Army in Iraq.

"It's a travesty, and we're trying to stop it," Rinehardt said.

Rinehardt went through nursing school with Dawkins and is a veteran herself. She's upset about the trouble her friend is in. In sharing his story with other vets, Rinehardt said that lots of people who don't know Dawkins can't believe it.

"We're all appalled that, how can you serve this country and be more dedicated to the ideals of this country, and serve this country and then be told, 'Guess what, you made a little clerical error. You're out of here.' And that's a travesty," Rinehardt said.

A federal indictment states that Dawkins started to fill out a passport application in 2004, didn't complete it, then filled out a new application two years later.

On that new application, he checked a box "no" for the question, "Have you ever applied before?" according to the indictment.

Dawkins got the passport, but three months ago, the government issued a warrant for his arrest. He was taking photos for the Navy at the time.

When Dawkins got back to the U.S. in April, he was arrested about a week later and has been in jail for two months since.

"The state department is implying there's something more. I want to know, and that's why I've written them," Nelson said.

"We've sent emails through our standard home, family email chains throughout the country," Rinehardt said. "The more attention we bring to this, the more people will see this as a disservice."

Dawkins' attorney calls the case an "absurd prosecution," saying that filling out a "no" box "did not merit criminal charges."

Because the trial is scheduled for next month, if Dawkins is still in jail at that point, he will insist on going to trial.

A pretrial hearing Tuesday in Miami is the next step.

Copyright 2011 by News4Jax.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.****

"In soccer, as in no other sport, team allegiance mirrors national allegiance. Soccer's ultimate contest, The World Cup, is a competition of national teams. The national team World Cup mentality dominates the entire fan base. In inter-country games, the fan roots for the team whose flag owns his heart and claims his first allegiance. The PC Los Angeles Times quotes one of the Mexican team's Rose Bowl fans, in part, as follows: "I was born in Mexico, and that is where my heart will always be." Exactly. And that's the problem with recent and present Mexican immigration."

This quote was from a previous post here on immigration. I disagreed; and I still do.

I thought of this post today. I have many Japanese friends; they truly love America. Many are citizens, working hard; quite a few are happily married to Americans. But I think ALL of them cheered for Japan today. No disrespect meant to America, but Japan is still where there heart lies. I think the same can be said of many Mexicans. And while I cheered for America, I was glad for Japan today as well.

Forgive me JDN, but what pleasant sophistry that seeks to ignore the elephant in the room! We don't share a border with Japan, which is not in a state of war with its narco gangs, nor do we have 12-20 million illegal Japanese here who think the Southwest of the US should belong to them.

Forgive me JDN, but what pleasant sophistry that seeks to ignore the elephant in the room! We don't share a border with Japan, which is not in a state of war with its narco gangs, nor do we have 12-20 million illegal Japanese here who think the Southwest of the US should belong to them.

Actually Crafty, my quote was from the American Thinker previously posted on this site.

No mention of the "state of war with it's narco gangs" or even illegal immigration.

Your "elephant" wasn't even brought up in the article. He wasn't even in the room.

The American Thinker article despairingly referenced, "The PC Los Angeles Times quotes one of the Mexican team's Rose Bowl fans, in part, as follows: "I was born in Mexico, and that is where my heart will always be." The American Thinker then went on to comment, Exactly. And that's the problem with recent and present Mexican immigration."

No "elephant" issues; IMHO the article was simply racist and slanted. That was/is my point.

"If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn't doing his part as an American."

That's @#$%^&

As I said, my Japanese friends in LA were all cheering for Japan yesterday. I know this was also true in NY, Boston, and SF; I received emails. Many of them were "segregated" at bars or friend's homes, cheering together "with men and women of their own origin". Most of them were speaking Japanese to each other (something also disparaged in the article). They were all born in Japan, and frankly, that is where their heart will always be. Yet they love America, work hard for America, and if necessary would fight and die for America. The same could be said for most Mexicans I know.

Absent from the discussion if I read this correctly is that the Mexicans in America were booing America publicly in America, on a Rose Bowl scale.

JDN, When you wrote previously that people on the board oppose legal immigration, I recall CCP sharing that view but most I think support legal immigration or even expanding it. We live in different parts of the country, work or operate in different crowds and see different things. I respect and trust CCP's vieweeing and hearing things that I haven't.

I suspect JDN's Japanese friends were NOT booing America, at least not to their faces.

The whole episode makes me rethink my position on liberal, legal immigration. My support has been based on the premise that there are plenty of people around the world who could contribute to our society and economy and would love to come to America, become Americans, and love this country as their own. That premise may very likely be false. Japan is also a great country and Mexico could be. If that is where your national price is, then build a great nation there.

If Japanese or Mexicans or Tajiks or anyone else want to come here to be Japanese people, Mexicans, Tajiks or anyone else working or residing in America - we have an app for that - it comes with an expiration/renewal date, you don't get voting shares and it isn't called citizenship.

(I enjoy a good soccer match, missed all this, but for the World Cup to be settled in a kickoff... They don't settle the US Opens with a long drive contest or a serving contest or settle the NBA finals with a slam dunk contest? I thought it was a team sport. Those Japanese friends should be celebrating their 2-2 tie with the Americans or playing overtime.)

-The cognitive dissonance of the illegal immigration debate.- All we hear from the Democrats is they are "not illegal" they are "undocumented" yet we see this *documentation* of their numbers and reports they are filing tax returns! So are they undocumented or documented? Which the hell is it?? My short answer is they are neither - they are illegal. This article suggest 9% of laborors in Kalifornia are illegal! That is unbelievable. So why are so many "legal" people/citizens UNemployed? For God's sake can't we get rid of the doles? This might get some people off their asses and back to work in jobs they don't love:

Published: Thursday, Jul. 28, 2011 - 12:00 am | Page 1B Last Modified: Thursday, Jul. 28, 2011 - 11:16 amThere are fewer undocumented immigrants in California – and the Sacramento region – because many are now finding the American dream south of the border.

"It's now easier to buy homes on credit, find a job and access higher education in Mexico," Sacramento's Mexican consul general, Carlos González Gutiérrez, said Wednesday. "We have become a middle-class country."

Mexico's unemployment rate is now 4.9 percent, compared with 9.4 percent joblessness in the United States.

An estimated 300,000 undocumented immigrants have left California since 2008, though the remaining 2.6 million still make up 7 percent of the population and 9 percent of the labor force, according to the Public Policy Institute of California.

Among metropolitan areas with more than 1 million residents, Sacramento County ranks among the lowest, with an unauthorized population of 4.6 percent of its 1.4 million residents in 2008, according to Laura Hill, a demographer with the PPIC.

The Sacramento region, suffering from 12.3 percent unemployment and the construction bust, may have triggered a large exodus of undocumented immigrants, González Gutiérrez said.

The best-paid jobs for undocumented migrants are in the building industry, "and because of the severe crisis in the construction business here, their first response has been to move into the service industry," González Gutiérrez said. "But that has its limits. Then, they move to other areas in the U.S. to find better jobs – or back to Mexico."

Hill said it's hard to know whether the benefit of having fewer undocumented migrants outweighs the cost to employers and taxpayers.

California may have to provide less free education to the children of undocumented immigrants and less emergency medical care, she said, but it will also get less tax revenue.

In 2008, at least 836,100 undocumented immigrants filed U.S. tax returns in California using individual tax identification numbers known as ITINS, said Hill, who conducted the tax survey.

Based on those tax returns, the study found there were 65,000 undocumented immigrants in Sacramento County that year, far fewer than in many other big counties.

Sacramento's undocumented population ranked 10th in the state that year, behind Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Santa Clara, San Bernardino, Riverside, Alameda, Contra Costa and Ventura.

There were an estimated 12,000 undocumented immigrants in Yolo County; 9,000 in the Sutter-Yuba area; and 8,000 in Placer County.

An analysis of local ZIP codes showed that Sacramento (95815, 95823, 95824), West Sacramento (95605), Clarksburg (95612), Esparto (95627), Guinda (95637), Knights Landing (95645), Winters (95694) and Woodland (95776) each had an undocumented population of 10 percent to 15 percent.

Yolo County relies heavily on migrant workers to grow and harvest crops.

"People in construction are now turning to agriculture; it's the start of the tomato season so the harvesters will be jump-started pretty soon," said Woodland Mayor Art Pimentel, whose 55,000 residents are 48 percent Latino, some of them undocumented.

Some aren't sticking around for the upcoming tomato harvest, said Sylvina Frausto, secretary of Holy Rosary Church in Woodland. "Some have a small parcel in Mexico. They own their own home there, so instead of renting here they go back to their small business there."

Many raise animals, run grocery stores or sell fruits and goods on street corners.

"They're going back home because they can't get medical help or government assistance anymore," Frausto said, "And when it's getting so difficult for them to find a job without proper documentation, it's pushing them away."

Anita Barnes, director of La Familia Counseling Center on Franklin Boulevard in Sacramento, said she recently spoke to a high school graduate who had lost his job in a restaurant and was thinking of going back to Mexico.

"He came over with his mom, who was in the process of losing her restaurant job," Barnes said. "It's frightening, especially for the children. They feel this is their country, they don't know anything else, and they find they can't get driver's licenses or jobs."

As its economy rebounds, Mexico "is becoming a better option than it was in the past, but you still have to find a job and reconnect," Barnes said.

While the weakened U.S. economy, rising deportations and tougher border enforcement have led to fewer undocumented migrants, changes in Mexico are playing a significant role, González Gutiérrez said.

Mexico's average standard of living – including health, education and per capita income – is now higher than those in Russia, China and India, according to the United Nations.

Mexico's growing middle class "reduces the appetites to come because there are simply many more options" at home, González Gutiérrez said. "Most people who decided to migrate already have a job in Mexico and tend to be the most ambitious and attracted to the income gap between the U.S. and Mexico."

Mexico's economy is growing at 4 percent to 5 percent, benefiting from low inflation, exports and a strong banking system, the consul said.

Mexico's birthrate is also declining sharply. "As a natural consequence of us transforming from a rural to an urban society, we are running out of Mexicans to export," González Gutiérrez said. "Our society's growing at a rate of 2.1 children per woman – in the 1970s it was more than five."

Once the U.S. economy recovers, the flow of migrants moving north "may go up again, although most likely they will not reach the peak levels we saw in the first half of the decade," González Gutiérrez said.****

Alan Simpson who has been making the MSM rounds criticizing the Tea Party for not agreeing with him on what to do about the debt was one of the authors of the amnesty bill signed by Reagan that encouraged what we see today. I note in Wikepedia below that employers were supposed to be responsible for insuring their hirees were legal which of course never happened. And borders were never secured. Yet this act in retrospect clearly sent the signal that the US was not serious about enforcing our immigration policies. Now we have 5 to 10 times the number of illegals in the country:

****Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986

Colloquial name(s) Simpson–Mazzoli Act Enacted by the 99th United States Congress Citations Public Law Pub.L. 99-603 Stat. 100 Stat. 3359 Codification Legislative history Introduced in the Senate as S. 1200 by Alan K. Simpson on May 23, 1985 Committee consideration by: Senate Judiciary, Senate Budget Passed the Senate on September 19, 1985 (69–30) Passed the House on October 9, 1986 (voice vote after incorporating H.R. 3810 , passed 230–166) Reported by the joint conference committee on October 14, 1986; agreed to by the House on October 15, 1986 (238–173) and by the Senate on October 17, 1986 (63–24) Signed into law by President Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986

Major amendments

Relevant Supreme Court cases

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), Pub.L. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359, enacted November 6, 1986, also Simpson-Mazzoli Act, is an Act of Congress which reformed United States immigration law.

In brief the act:[1]

required employers to attest to their employees' immigration status. made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit unauthorized immigrants. granted amnesty to certain seasonal agricultural illegal immigrants. granted amnesty to illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously. Contents [hide]1 Legislative background and description 2 Effect upon the labor market 3 See also 4 References 5 External links

[edit] Legislative background and description This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2010)

Romano L. Mazzoli was a Democratic representative from Kentucky and Alan K. Simpson was a Republican senator from Wyoming who chaired their respective immigration subcommittees in Congress. Their effort was assisted by the recommendations of the bipartisan Commission on Immigration Reform, chaired by Rev. Theodore Hesburgh, then President of the University of Notre Dame.

The law criminalized the act of knowingly hiring an illegal immigrant and established financial and other penalties for those employing illegal aliens under the theory that low prospects for employment would reduce illegal immigration. It introduced the I-9 form to ensure that all employees presented documentary proof of their legal eligibility to accept employment in the United States.

These sanctions would apply only to employers that had more than three employees and did not make a sufficient effort to determine the legal status of their workers.

The first Simpson-Mazzoli Bill was reported out of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. The bill failed to be received by the House, but civil rights advocates were concerned over the potential for abuse and discrimination against Hispanics, growers' groups rallied for additional provisions for foreign labor, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce persistently opposed sanctions against employers.

The second Simpson-Mazzoli Bill finally passed both houses in 1985, but it came apart in the conference committee over the issue of cost. The year marked an important turning point for the reform effort. Employer opposition to employer sanctions began to subside, partly because of the "affirmative defense" clause in the law that explicitly released employers from any obligation to check the authenticity of workers' documents.

Also, agricultural employers shifted their focus from opposition to employer sanctions to a concerted campaign to secure alternative sources of foreign labor. As opposition to employer sanctions waned and growers' lobbying efforts for extensive temporary worker programs intensified, agricultural worker programs began to outrank employer sanctions component as the most controversial element of reform.

"The following year, Sen. Simpson reintroduced the bill that Congressional opponents were now calling 'The Monster from the Blue Lagoon' because of its eerie ability to rise from the dead. By September, this Senate version had already passed...."[2]

The act was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan. An estimated 3 million unauthorized immigrants received amnesty under the act. A May 26, 2006 New York Times article arrived at the figure 2.8 million: 1.7 million under a general amnesty, plus 90% of the 1.3 million that applied under a special program for agricultural workers.[1]

[edit] Effect upon the labor marketAccording to one study, the IRCA caused some employers to discriminate against workers who appeared foreign, resulting in a small reduction in overall Hispanic employment. There is no statistical evidence that a reduction in employment correlated to unemployment in the economy as a whole or was separate from the general unemployment population statistics.[3] Another study stated that if hired, wages were being lowered to compensate employers for the perceived risk of hiring foreigners.[4]

The hiring process also changed as employers turned to indirect hiring through subcontractors. "Under a subcontracting agreement, a U.S. citizen or resident alien contractually agrees with an employer to provide a specific number of workers for a certain period of time to undertake a defined task at a fixed rate of pay per worker".[4] "By using a subcontractor the firm is not held liable since the workers are not employees. The use of a subcontractor decreases a worker's wages since a portion is kept by the subcontractor. This indirect hiring is imposed on everyone regardless of legality".[4]

Hat tip to CCP; pasting his post from Cognitive Dissonance here as well

****New DHS Rules Cancel Deportations – Washington Times

The Homeland Security Department said Thursday it will halt deportation proceedings on a case-by-case basis against illegal immigrants who meet certain criteria such as attending school, having family in the military or are primarily responsible for other family members’ care.

The move, announced in letters to Congress, won immediate praise from Hispanic activists and Democrats who had chided President Obama for months for the pace of deportations and had argued he had authority to exempt broad swaths of illegal immigrants from deportation.

“Today’s announcement shows that this president is willing to put muscle behind his words and to use his power to intervene when the lives of good people are being ruined by bad laws,” said Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, Illinois Democrat.

In the letters to Congress, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said her department and the Justice Department will review all ongoing cases and see who meets the new criteria on a case-by-case basis.

“This case-by-case approach will enhance public safety,” she said. “Immigration judges will be able to more swiftly adjudicate high priority cases, such as those involving convicted felons.”

The new rules apply to those who have been apprehended and are in deportation proceedings, but have not been officially ordered out of the country by a judge. Miss Napolitano said a working group will try to come up with “guidance on how to provide for appropriate discretionary consideration” for “compelling cases” in those instances where someone has already been ordered deported.

It was unclear how many people might be affected by the new rules, though in fiscal year 2010 the government deported nearly 200,000 illegal immigrants who it said did not have criminal records.

The Obama administration has argued for months that it did not have authority to grant blanket absolution, and Miss Napolitano stressed that these cases will be treated individually, though the new guidance applies across the board.

In June, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency that handles interior immigration law enforcement, issued new guidance expanding authority to decline to prosecute illegal immigrants. The goal, ICE leaders said, was to focus on their priority of catching illegal immigrants who have also committed other crimes or are part of gangs.

The chief beneficiaries of the new guidance are likely to be illegal immigrant students who would have been eligible for legal status under the Dream Act, which stalled in Congress last year.

“Today is a victory not just for immigrants but for the American people as a whole because it makes no sense to deport Dream Act students and others who can make great contributions to America and pose no threat,” Mr. Gutierrez said. “It is not in our national interest to send away young people who were raised in the U.S. and have been educated here and want only to contribute to this country’s success. “

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat who earlier this year wrote asking Homeland Security to exempt illegal immigrant students from deportation, said the move will free up immigration courts to handle cases involving serious criminals.

Both men said, though, that they will continue to push for legislation that would grant a path to citizenship to illegal immigrants and expands new pathways for more immigrants to come legally in the future.

But groups pushing for a crackdown on illegal immigration said the administration’s move abused the Constitution by usurping a power Congress should have.

“Supporters of comprehensive and targeted amnesties for illegal aliens have consistently failed to win approval by Congress or gain support from the American public,” said Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform. “Having failed in the legislative process, the Obama administration has simply decided to usurp Congress’s constitutional authority and implement an amnesty program for millions of illegal aliens.”****

Way to win over the swing voters who are concerned about illegal aliens.

Yeah, but he locks up the Hispanic and immigrant vote. Probably a good political move.

Still, I don't like it.

Legal immigrants are pissed off at the pandering done towards illegals. There are plenty of Americans of hispanic ancestry that dislike the criminal invaders damaging this county as much as any other American. Obama already had the Razaist vote locked up.

Thanks for the "correction", but I don't think so. That is where the votes are. And Hispanics are the majority of illegals.And as a group, hispanics seem to stick together, and vote, more so than other ethnic groups. It's just practical and politics for Obama, but I still don't like it.

Thanks for the "correction", but I don't think so. That is where the votes are. And Hispanics are the majority of illegals.And as a group, hispanics seem to stick together, and vote, more so than other ethnic groups. It's just practical and politics for Obama, but I still don't like it.

When you work against the best interests of your nation because of a racial/ethnic alligence to criminals, that's racist, or in this case "razaist".

"Criminal" is perhaps too strong of a word (most are hard working, honest people) for an illegal immigrant raised here as a child, or someone who fought for our country, and I'm not sure it "works against the best interest of our nation" to admit them, although it should be a gradual step by step IMHO, however, in general, I"m against blanket amnesty. And sorry, Obama's decision is not racist, just practical. Something has to be done. We are not going to deport 12 million people.

If you did not enter the US through an authorized point of entry and submit to customs/immigrations inspection, that's a violation of federal law. Meaning it's a crime. If you use bogus documents for employment, that's a crime. If you steal an American's identity, that's a crime. Even if you aren't doing the robbing, raping and murdering many illegal aliens do, you're still a criminal.

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection;misrepresentation and concealment of factsAny alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United Statesat any time or place other than as designated by immigrationofficers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigrationofficers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the UnitedStates by a willfully false or misleading representation or thewillful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the firstcommission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 orimprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequentcommission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, orimprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.(b) Improper time or place; civil penaltiesAny alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting toenter) the United States at a time or place other than asdesignated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civilpenalty of - (1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (orattempted entry); or(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case ofan alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty underthis subsection.Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and notin lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may beimposed.(c) Marriage fraudAny individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for thepurpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall beimprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined not more than$250,000, or both.(d) Immigration-related entrepreneurship fraudAny individual who knowingly establishes a commercial enterprisefor the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration lawsshall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in accordancewith title 18, or both.

"Way to win over the swing voters who are concerned about illegal aliens."

"Yeah, but he locks up the Hispanic and immigrant vote. Probably a good political move."-----The Hispanic vote is something like this 60-40 Dem. This may energize the 60 somewhat who may have relatives/friends with an issue. The other 40 lean R for other reasons, economic, pro-life, pro-family, pro-business, who knows.

For the non-Hispanic, it probably leans the other way. Some have had it with the illegals especially depending on where you live, some see the other side of it. I would guess that 'typical white people' are 60-40 anti-illegal-immigration.

Where I live the border issue has more to do with those pesky Canadians infiltrating our hockey leagues.

Things get really complicated when the law comes to mean nothing.

The anti-deportation move is Obama flexing the powers of incumbency. If it was good policy, he would have done it 2 1/2 years ago. Like most desperate moves by desperate people, it is most likely to backfire.

Asssessing the politics of this: Net I think it gets Baraq more votes. I doubt the Reps will draw much attention to this-- the cases that meet the criteria are precisely those most susceptible to heart strings.

"Net I think it gets Baraq more votes. I doubt the Reps will draw much attention to this-- the cases that meet the criteria are precisely those most susceptible to heart strings."

I disagree with only the middle part of this. At least some of the R. candidates will try to run with this as a) symbolic of his soft on borders stance - mocking people who wanted moats?, and b) symbolic of his czar style of governance where big moves (like regulating carbon emissions) don't need to go through any other branch.

Presumably he did it out of the compassion in his heart - but if so why wait nearly 1000 days. Maybe he did it to energize Bachmann as Perry is a little soft on the issue and Romney neutral(?) and stir up some divisive passions in his opponents while he is gone.

He is also flaunting the (unlimited?) powers of incumbency to any would-be challengers in his own party, as his economic approval dips to 26%.

What I don't like is that he knew and planned this big secret for the perfect everyone-is-leaving-Washington moment. So if listen carefully to him daily to find out what he is thinking and planning for our country you will know less than the people who don't.

Doug writes Hispanics vote 40/60 Rep/Dem. I find it hard to believe that most illegals, if had the chance to vote (some I bet do already) would vote Rep at a rate as high as 40% yet this from Barone?Rasmussen:

****GOP Shouldn't Panic If Whites Become a Minority A Commentary By Michael BaroneMonday, April 04, 2011 Email to a Friend ShareThisAdvertisement Are whites on the verge of becoming a minority of the American population? That's what some analysts of the 2010 Census results claim. Many go on, sometimes with relish, to say that this spells electoral doom for the Republican Party.

I think the picture is more complicated than that. And that the demise of the Republican Party is no more foreordained than it was a century ago when Italian, Jewish and Polish immigrants were pouring into the United States in proportions much greater than the Hispanic and Asian immigration of the past two decades.

The numbers do appear stark. The Census tells us that 16 percent of U.S. residents are Hispanic, up from 13 percent in 2000 and 9 percent in 1990, and that 5 percent are Asian, up from 4 percent in 2000. The percentage of blacks held steady at 13. Among children, the voters of tomorrow, those percentages are higher.

But it's a mistake to see blacks, Hispanics and Asians as a single "people of color" voting bloc. The 2010 exit poll shows that the Republican percentages in the vote for the U.S. House were 60 percent among whites, 9 percent among blacks, 38 percent among Hispanics and 40 percent among Asians.

Simple arithmetic tells you that Hispanics and Asians vote more like whites than like blacks. The picture is similar in the 2008 exit poll.

Moreover, while blacks vote similarly in just about every state, there is wide variation among Hispanics. In 2010 governor elections, Hispanics voted 31 percent Republican in California, 38 percent Republican in Texas and 50 percent Republican in Florida (where Cubans are no longer a majority of Hispanics).

As RealClearPolitics senior political analyst Sean Trende has written, Hispanics tend to vote 10 percent to 15 percent less Republican than whites of similar income and education levels. An increasingly Hispanic electorate puts Republicans at a disadvantage, but not an overwhelming one.

The same is true of Asians. In 2010, Democratic Sen. Harry Reid got 79 percent from Asians in Nevada, where many are Filipinos. But the Asians in Middlesex County, N.J., most of whom are from India, seem to have voted for Republican Gov. Chris Christie in 2009.

The 2010 Census tells something else that may prove important: There's been a slowdown of immigration since the recession began in 2007 and even some reverse migration. If you look at the Census results for Hispanic immigrant entry points -- East Los Angeles and Santa Ana, Calif., the east side of Houston, the Pilsen neighborhood in Chicago -- you find that the Hispanic population has dropped sharply since 2000.

One reason is the business cycle. The 2000 Census was taken on April 1, 2000, less than a month after the peak of the tech boom. Unemployment was low, immigration was high, and entry-point houses and apartments were crammed with large families.

The 2010 Census was taken after two years of recession, when immigration had slackened off. We simply don't know whether this was just a temporary response to the business cycle or the beginning of a permanent decline in migration.

Past mass migrations, which most experts expected to continue indefinitely, in fact ended abruptly. Net Puerto Rican migration to New York City stopped in 1961, and the huge movement of Southern blacks to Northern cities ended in 1965. Those who extrapolate current trends far into the future end up being wrong sooner or later.

Finally there is an assumption -- which is particularly strong among those who expect a majority "people of color" electorate to put Democrats in power permanently -- that racial consciousness never changes. But sometimes it does.

American blacks do have common roots in slavery and segregation. But African immigrants don't share that heritage, and Hispanics come from many different countries and cultures (there are big regional differences just within Mexico). The Asian category includes anyone from Japan to Lebanon and in between.

Under the definitions in use in the America of a century ago, when Southern and Eastern European immigrants were not regarded as white, the United States became a majority non-white nation sometime in the 1950s. By today's definitions, we'll become majority non-white a few decades hence.

But that may not make for the vast cultural and political change some predict. Not if we assimilate newcomers, and if our two political parties adapt, as we and they have done in the past.

Michael Barone, senior political analyst for The Washington Examiner, is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel contributor and a co-author of The Almanac of American Politics.

COPYRIGHT 2011 THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER Rasmussen Reports Platinum Members get an all-access pass to polling news, analysis and insight not available to the general public.